Every year, the NBA is getting smarter. Front offices, coaches, players and fans around the league are all learning more about the game by embracing analytics on some level. More than ever, we know which shots are good shots, which players can make their teams better without scoring and the value of being efficient.

Now, NBA.com takes a step forward with the relaunch of NBA.com/stats, a massive tool which will allow you to learn more about the league’s teams and players and see if the numbers back up what you see.

If you’re new to the advanced stats movement, we’re here to catch you up. The best place to begin is with pace, efficiency and the four factors.

Pace

Advanced stats on the team level start with the acknowledgement of pace. Different teams play at different speeds and numbers should reflect that. So instead of measuring team offense or defense by the number of points scored or allowed per game, we look at them on a per-possession basis.

For example, opponents of the Brooklyn Nets score just 94.7 points a game, the fifth-lowest mark in the league. But that number is more about the pace at which the Nets play than how good they are defensively. The Nets do not play quickly. Opponents average just 90.5 possessions per 48 minutes, the slowest pace in the league. So that means the Nets won’t play in a lot of high-scoring games. On a per-possession basis, the Nets actually rank 17th defensively.

In the same vein, the Nets are a better offensive team than their per-game numbers indicate. On a per-game basis, they score the 20th most points in the league. But when you adjust for pace, they have the 12th most efficient offense.

This is important because when two teams play each other, they’re going to each get the ball an equal number of times (give or take an extra possession or two, depending on how the ends of quarters go). Numbers that aren’t pace-adjusted are kind of worthless.

Efficiency and the four factors

Often, a broadcaster will use field-goal percentage to measure how effective an offense or defense is. But that doesn’t tell the whole story.

For example, the Atlanta Hawks shoot well (sixth best). But they turn the ball over too often, don’t get to the free-throw line much and fail to grab many offensive rebounds. Take those factors into account and the Hawks rank 15th offensively.

Per-game numbers and standard field-goal percentage both lack context. Offensive and defensive efficiency, however, are tidy numbers that show exactly how good teams.

To make efficiency resemble standard stats, we look at points scored or allowed per 100 possessions. The formulas are simple …

Possessions do not necessarily end with a shot. An offensive rebound extends a possession. The number of possessions a team has over the course of a game (or the season, or a stretch of games) is estimated using standard boxscore stats and the following formula:

As noted in the paragraph about the Hawks above, there are four factors that affect efficiency: Shooting, rebounding, turnovers and free-throw rate. A strong offensive team has to be good at more than one of the four.

Here’s how they break down:

Shooting (effective field-goal percentage)

Effective field-goal percentage (EFG%) is a better number than standard field-goal percentage because it takes the added value of a 3-pointer into account.

Here’s the formula:

EFG% = (FGM + (0.5 * 3PM)) / FGA

And here’s an example of why EFG% is a better number than standard FG%:

Team A gets the ball 10 times, shoots 10 2-point shots and makes five of them. So they had a field-goal percentage of 50.0 percent and scored 10 points on those 10 shots.

Team B gets the ball 10 times, shoots 3-for-5 from 2-point range and 2-for-5 from 3-point range. They also had a field-goal percentage of 50.0 percent but scored 12 points on those 10 shots.

Team A’s effective field-goal percentage was 50.0 percent. Team B’s was 60 percent.

Instead of looking at rebounds per game, we want to look at rebounding percentage, because other factors (how well a team or its opponent shoots and how often they turn it over) can affect raw rebounding numbers.

And here’s an example of how rebounding percentage can affect efficiency …

Team A gets the ball 10 times, shoots 10 2-point shots, makes five of them and doesn’t rebound any of the misses. So they scored 10 points on their 10 possessions.

Team B gets the ball 10 times, shoots 10 initial 2-point shots and makes only four of the 10. But Team B rebounds two of its six initial misses and follows them each up with a 2-point make.

So both teams shot 50 percent (whether you’re looking at standard or effective field-goal percentage). Team A shot 5-for-10 and Team B shot 6-for-12. But Team B was more efficient, scoring 12 points on its 10 possessions, while Team A scored just 10.

Team A had an offensive rebounding percentage (OREB%) of 0.0 percent, because they grabbed zero of the five available offensive boards. Team B had an OREB% of 33.3 percent, because they grabbed two of the six available offensive boards.

Simply, a trip to the line for two free throws is worth more than a shot from the field. On average, two free throws are worth 1.56 points (because the league shoots 75.3 percent from the line), while a shot from the field is worth 0.99 (because the league-average EFG% is 49.3 percent).

One more time …

Team A gets the ball 10 times and shoots 5-for-10 on 2-point shots with no turnovers, offensive rebounds or free throws.

Team B gets the ball 10 times, shots 4-for-8 on 2-point shots but gets fouled on two other attempts and shoots 3-for-4 from the free-throw line.

Once more, both teams shot 50 percent (FG% or EFG%). But Team B was more efficient, scoring 11 points on its 10 possessions, while Team A scored just 10.

Free-throw rate (FTA rate) is measured by a simple formula:

FTA/FGA. Team A had a FTA Rate of .000 (0/10). Team B had a free-throw rate of .500 (4/8).